From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest)
To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #57
Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Precedence: bulk
skunk-works-digest Monday, April 26 1999 Volume 08 : Number 057
Index of this digest by subject:
***************************************************
Albright
Mach 1 Prop?
Linebacker Wild Weasel Losses
> Mach 1 props
Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: > Mach 1 props
NEW X-34 SPACEPLANE TO BE UNVEILED AT DRYDEN
FWD: (TLC-Mission) Re: Recent F-111G, RAAF accident
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Demise of the High-Speed Research (HSR) program
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
***************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:47:07 -0700
From: David Lednicer
Subject: Albright
Art wrote:
> P.S. Isn't this Milosevec the same Milosevec who our State Department
> sought out as a guarantor of the Dayton Peace accords for this area just
> a couple of years back? Or, is the genocidal thug Milosevec a different
> Milosevec?
Same thug - we refused to talk to the Bosnian Serb leadership, so
we turned to the next lesser evil. In retrospect, we should have turned
him over to the International Tribunal in the Hague.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:53:08 -0700
From: David Lednicer
Subject: Mach 1 Prop?
Sorry for the delay in my response - I was rolling on the floor
laughing!
If you look at the velocity vector diagram for a prop, as you go
faster and faster, the inflow angle approaches 90 degrees, making it
harder and harder to get any angle of attack. Look at photos of Rare Bear
at speed - the prop looks almost feathered. This seriously reduces the
prop efficiency, meaning that you have almost no thrust left by the time
you get to M=1.
Piston engined fighters were dived to very high speeds in research
programs during WWII, but never went past M=1. I have data sitting in
here from Spitfire and Mustang dive tests.
I examined the Mach Buster at Oshkosh back in '87 or '88. It is a
total scam and will never break M=1. I think they will be lucky to go
M=.7!
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:59:08 -0400
From: Jim Rotramel
Subject: Linebacker Wild Weasel Losses
"Seems like they were in an F-4 Wild Weasel fairly late in the war.
They were hit
and ejected."
I don't think this can be correct. There were only six F-4C Wild Weasels
involved in Linebacker and none (to the best of my knowledge) were lost.
there were several F-105F/G Wild Weasels lost in 1972. All were from
the 388th TFW at Korat. All but were from the 17 WWS except for 359,
which was a 561 TFS aircraft deployed from McConnell. Dates are YYMMDD
The losses were:
F-105G-1 63-8333 720217 Hit NVn, cr @ sea
F-105G-1 63-8342 720415 NVn
F-105G-1 62-4424 720511 Nvn, MiG-21 Atoll Tuna 4
F-105F-1 62-4443 720729 Hit NVn, cr @ sea
F-105F-1 63-8347 720729 Hit NVn, cr @ sea
F-105F-1 63-8360 720917 Hit NVn, cr @ sea
F-105G-1 63-8302 720929 NVn
F-105G-1 63-8359 721116 NVn
Of these, the crews of the aircraft that made it 'feet wet' and crashed
at sea clearly wouldn't have been captured.
As for the fate of the referenced EWO, I have no comment; just trying to
set the record straight about what aircraft were actually lost.
Jim Rotramel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:35:17 +1000
From: Joe Sleator
Subject: > Mach 1 props
Hi,
I'd be willing to bet that any a/c which is ostensibly prop-driven which
exceeds Mach 1 will have the following features:
1. Propulsion system will be in a shroud, with either configurable inlet
geometry, or fixed narrow mouth which opens out to slow down the
velocity of the incoming air.
2. Will also have a nozzle or constriction in the shroud at the back
(perhaps also variable geo.) which accelerates the propwash.
3. Will otherwise look like a mach-1 class airframe in significant ways.
4. Will have the propulsion at the back of the airframe.
Now, I was thinking that as someone else said, if your inlet geometry
included the ability to _close_off_ the duct, hiding the propeller or
fan in a pointed closable nacelle, it would be possible with a simpler
design, to accelerate to .8 mach at high altitude, and then dive past
mach 1.
Anybody else have an opinion on this?
Regards,
Joe Sleator
Sydney
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:41:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Singer
Subject: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
We all remember when the F-117 crashed in Maryland last year. Well, TLC
is currently running a show called Without Warning inwhich they have some
additional spectacular footage of the crash.
We saw footage of the crash from the airshow audience's prespective, but
their is also additional footage of the crash by what looks like people on
the lake. The footage is VERY good and very close.
The show will be rerun 11:30pm on 22 April. Sorry for the short notice
but I just found it.
Dan Singer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:44:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stan Brown"
Subject: Re: > Mach 1 props
>4. Will have the propulsion at the back of the airframe.
>
I see the rationale behind all your other points, but I don't
understand the importance of this one.
Mind clarifying the reasoning behind having the ducted prop at the
back?
- --
Stan Brown stanb@netcom.com 843-745-3154
Westvaco
Charleston SC.
- --
Windows 98: n.
useless extension to a minor patch release for 32-bit extensions and
a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit
company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
- -
(c) 1999 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:18:45 -0400
From: Martin Hurst
Subject: NEW X-34 SPACEPLANE TO BE UNVEILED AT DRYDEN
NASA press releases:
The first of three X-34 demonstration vehicles will be
"rolled out" at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center,
Edwards, CA, on Friday, April 30, opening an era of low-cost
reusable space planes.
The X-34, a single-engine rocket plane, will fly itself
using onboard computers. The vehicle is approximately 58
feet long, 28 feet wide at wing tip and 11 feet tall from
the bottom of the fuselage to the top of the tail. The X-34
will launch from an L-1011 airliner and will reach altitudes
of up to 250,000 feet and travel up to eight times faster
than the speed of sound.
Flights of the X-34 will test many new technologies:
composite material structures, composite tanks and new,
integrated avionics. The vehicle also will demonstrate the
ability to fly through inclement weather, land horizontally
at a designated landing site, and safely abort during
flight. The planned 27 flights within a year will
demonstrate the program's ability to fly within 24 hours of
its last mission, using a small ground crew.
The X-34 has completed ground vibration tests, ensuring
there will be no potentially hazardous vibrations during
flight. The L-1011 and the X-34 prototype were tested
separately and together at Dryden.
After the rollout, the X-34 will be mounted underneath
the L-1011 and flown on "captive-carry" flights to allow the
Federal Aviation Administration to approve modifications to
the L-1011. When powered flights begin for X-34, the
demonstrator will be carried aloft and separate from the L-
1011 before igniting its rocket engine. Following the
powered portion of flight, the unpiloted X-34 will land
horizontally, initially on a dry lakebed and eventually on a
runway.
The April 30 rollout, which is open to the media, will
air live on NASA Television. A press conference will be held
at 1 p.m. EDT, and the rollout ceremony will take place at 2
p.m. EDT. For accreditation and more information, reporters
should contact Leslie Mathews at Dryden Public Affairs on
(661) 258-3893.
NASA TV is available on GE-2, transponder 9C at 85
degrees west longitude, with vertical polarization.
Frequency is on 3880.0 megahertz, with audio on 6.8
megahertz.
In a cooperative program among NASA Centers, Dryden
will provide flight-testing and ground vibration testing.
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, manages
the X-34 project. Orbital Sciences Corporation Dulles, VA,
is designing, developing and testing the vehicle.
- end -
NASA press releases and other information are available automatically
by sending an Internet electronic mail message to domo@hq.nasa.gov.
In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type
the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes). The system will
reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second
automatic message will include additional information on the service.
NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command
GO NASA. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail
message to domo@hq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the message.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 12:01:14 -0700
From: "Terry W. Colvin"
Subject: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Re: Recent F-111G, RAAF accident
Re RAAF, F-111G. Papers here report A/C had new mission computer software
installed but was still using analogue system. About half of the 40 A/C
have been upgraded to digital system. This aircraft was reported one of
a pair carrying out a simulated strike on a naval force in the South China
Sea. Maybe they were manual, going hard and low for radar avoidance and
misjudged the height of the rock, but these 2 guys were long time F-111
crew so big chance it was a system failure. Capsule separation occurred
but the crew did not survive. RAAF have lost 5? A/C in 20 years of F-111
operations. Terrain avoidance system seems to work ok, they belt low and
hard around the mountains and valleys all the time and never hit the
rocks. Majority of prangs have been landing, takeoff and bird strike.
Another 11 off F-111's & spares coming from USA this year. Big problem
is shortage of aircrew, RAAF is recruiting experienced ex-military US and
Canadian nationals to fly fast jets. RAAF size down from 22K in 1975 to
present 15K with more A/C now. Also big shortage of A/c fixers. Hear
Boeing has contract to fix F-111's using majority US citizens. No
hostile action please!!.
Regards,
Mick Morrissey
- ----------------
Larry Clum wrote:
> Speaking of F-111, Reuters just reported an F-111 is missing after
> hitting a peak on a Malaysian island. Aussie RAAF plane with two
> aboard...participating in exercises with Malay AF Happened 1230 Sun.
> GMT....TAV problem?
>
> Larry
- --
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 >
Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage *
U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
- ------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
TLCB Web Site: < http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html >
Southeast Asia (SEA) service:
Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade
Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (Jan 71 - Aug 72)
Thailand/Laos
- Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand
(USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73)
- Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand
(STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site
(Aug 73 - Jan 74)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 99 18:15:22 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
On 4/22/99 5:41PM, in message
wrote:
> We all remember when the F-117 crashed in Maryland last year. Well, TLC
> is currently running a show called Without Warning inwhich they have some
> additional spectacular footage of the crash.
>
> We saw footage of the crash from the airshow audience's prespective, but
> their is also additional footage of the crash by what looks like people on
> the lake.
An interesting footnote about that crash was that the Government removed
nearby people from their homes until all the parts of the F-117 that they could
get were recovered. This was to protect the secrets of the technology.
By contrast, when an F-117 was brought down in a hostile country, it was left
there to be recovered by the enemy. The reason for this is that our forces are
not under our command. As a result, to bomb the wreckage in order to protect the
technology, first the clueless bureaucrats have to get together and then vote on
whether or not to bomb the remains, since they are not a previously authorized and
scheduled target. It turns out there's no mechanism to get these politicos
together at times that are inconvenient for them. So, the remains just sat there
for the Serbs (and by extension the Russians) to remove and study at their
leisure.
Art
Art
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 99 18:46:14 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Demise of the High-Speed Research (HSR) program
On 4/18/99 7:10PM, in message <01BE89E9.76795140@oldpc>, Martin Hurst
wrote:
>
> This will set back U.S. work toward an economically viable supersonic
> airliner by a decade, Daniel S. Goldin told House appropriators.
> It has the NASA administrator deeply worried about the nation's
> leadership in aeronautics.
> After Boeing pulled out of the effort to develop a 300-seat Mach 2.4
> civil transport, the Clinton Administration yanked HSR from its Fiscal
> 2000 budget.
> He adds, "If America does not lead the world in the
> commercial aeronautics sector, it will have a significant impact on our
> defense."
>
While Dr. Goldin's statement is true, it doesn't tell the complete story.
The Clinton Administration yanked virtually all large scale aeronautic research
out of the budget in order to cover Russia's continuing defaults on the Space
Station.
Art
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:22:18 -0700
From: patrick
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
>
>
>> We all remember when the F-117 crashed in Maryland last year. Well, TLC
>> is currently running a show called Without Warning inwhich they have some
>> additional spectacular footage of the crash.
>>
>> We saw footage of the crash from the airshow audience's prespective, but
>> their is also additional footage of the crash by what looks like people on
>> the lake.
>
>(Art)
> An interesting footnote about that crash was that the Government
removed
>nearby people from their homes until all the parts of the F-117 that they
could
>get were recovered. This was to protect the secrets of the technology.
>
> By contrast, when an F-117 was brought down in a hostile country, it
was left
>there to be recovered by the enemy. The reason for this is that our
forces are
>not under our command.
When 801 crashed and burned at La Luz, NM there were several people
including firefighters that were sent to the hospital for inhalation of the
fumes from the burning RAM. There is or was a fairly healthy law suit
filed by employees of Groom Lake or in some cases their surviving
relatives. This was over the same thing, inhalation of fumes from RAM
being burnt in open trenches at Groom. As I recall the video of 793 showed
it totally engulfed in flames sitting between several houses is a suburban
neighborhood. So to move everyone out of the area seems quite logical and
prudent in light of the known danger.
Of course we have no control over people in a war zone examining our
wreckage. The official line claims the wreckage could have been bombed but
the cost/benefit ratio precluded this.
Not ever seeing or hearing of any evidence of "secret equipment" and
assuming the official explanation might be correct occaisionally the
actions in all these cases seems straightforward to me.
What type of "secret equipment" do 117's carry anyway? We seem to know how
all their systems operate and can see all the equipment required to do
such, then what remains? I think "secret equipment" on a 117 is folklore
which helps in perpetrating a mystique or allure regarding this airplane.
patrick
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Kaltsidis
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
> On 4/22/99 5:41PM, in message
> wrote:
>
>
> > We all remember when the F-117 crashed in Maryland last year. Well, TLC
> > is currently running a show called Without Warning inwhich they have some
> > additional spectacular footage of the crash.
> >
> > We saw footage of the crash from the airshow audience's prespective, but
> > their is also additional footage of the crash by what looks like people on
> > the lake.
>
>
> An interesting footnote about that crash was that the Government removed
> nearby people from their homes until all the parts of the F-117 that they
could
> get were recovered. This was to protect the secrets of the technology.
>
> By contrast, when an F-117 was brought down in a hostile country, it was
left
> there to be recovered by the enemy. The reason for this is that our forces
are
> not under our command. As a result, to bomb the wreckage in order to protect
the
> technology, first the clueless bureaucrats have to get together and then vote
on
> whether or not to bomb the remains, since they are not a previously authorized
and
> scheduled target. It turns out there's no mechanism to get these politicos
Didn't we learn anything in Nam?
> together at times that are inconvenient for them. So, the remains just sat
there
> for the Serbs (and by extension the Russians) to remove and study at their
> leisure.
>
It is believed that the Serbs are working with the Iraqis to improve their air
defense capabilities, so they may be willing to share some of the RAM with them.
I wouldn't be surprised if some pieces of RAM ended up in Chinese hands, since
the Serbs and the Chinese are in bed together. But it's not just the RAM we
should be worried about -- the avionics, communications, IFF and targeting
systems are more sensitive than the RAM itself. IIRC an F414 engine survived the
crash almost intact, and I'm sure there are a lot of countries that wouldn't
mind getting their hands on one, despite it's age.
>
>
>
> Art
>
>
>
> Art
We basically gave our technology away to present and future enemies, which in my
book is absolutely unacceptable.
Sam "Bomb'em all back to the stone age" Kaltsidis
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 99 04:59:51 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
On 4/25/99 6:58PM, in message <199904260158.VAA11920@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam
Kaltsidis wrote:
>
>
> We basically gave our technology away to present and future enemies, which in my
> book is absolutely unacceptable.
>
>
>
Ah, but in the interests of the new "Globalism" (not to mention campaign
contributions) this is apparently now considered acceptable.
Art
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 99 05:05:25 GMT
From: betnal@ns.net
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
On 4/25/99 2:22PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19990425142218.0072f698@e-z.net>, patrick
wrote:
> >
>
> .
>
> Of course we have no control over people in a war zone examining our
> wreckage. The official line claims the wreckage could have been bombed but
> the cost/benefit ratio precluded this.
Do you Seriously believe this? Cost/benefit ratio!!? Can you say, "Official
C.Y.A."? Besides, Avweek (4/5/99) and elsewhere have reported how all strikes
have to be decided on by NATO politicos first, excpet for rescues.
>
> Not ever seeing or hearing of any evidence of "secret equipment" and
> assuming the official explanation might be correct occaisionally the
> actions in all these cases seems straightforward to me.
>
> What type of "secret equipment" do 117's carry anyway?
The amount of radar absorbtion/dispersion is one thing you can learn from
intact parts.
>
Art
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:58:31 -0700
From: patrick
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
> wrote:
>
>> Of course we have no control over people in a war zone examining our
>> wreckage. The official line claims the wreckage could have been bombed but
>> the cost/benefit ratio precluded this.
>
>
> Do you Seriously believe this? Cost/benefit ratio!!? Can you say,
"Official
>C.Y.A."? Besides, Avweek (4/5/99) and elsewhere have reported how all
strikes
>have to be decided on by NATO politicos first, excpet for rescues.
>
>>
>> Not ever seeing or hearing of any evidence of "secret equipment" and
>> assuming the official explanation might be correct occaisionally the
>> actions in all these cases seems straightforward to me.
>>
>> What type of "secret equipment" do 117's carry anyway?
>
>
> The amount of radar absorbtion/dispersion is one thing you can learn
from
>intact parts.
>
RAM can be purchased in England commercially. The stuff is 20 or 30 years
old. We didn't invent it. Surely the Russkey's have learned how to
formulate the stuff by now.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 05:02:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Kaltsidis
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Of course we have no control over people in a war zone examining our
> >> wreckage. The official line claims the wreckage could have been bombed but
> >> the cost/benefit ratio precluded this.
> >
> >
> > Do you Seriously believe this? Cost/benefit ratio!!? Can you say,
> "Official
> >C.Y.A."? Besides, Avweek (4/5/99) and elsewhere have reported how all
> strikes
> >have to be decided on by NATO politicos first, excpet for rescues.
> >
> >>
> >> Not ever seeing or hearing of any evidence of "secret equipment" and
> >> assuming the official explanation might be correct occaisionally the
> >> actions in all these cases seems straightforward to me.
> >>
> >> What type of "secret equipment" do 117's carry anyway?
> >
> >
> > The amount of radar absorbtion/dispersion is one thing you can learn
> from
> >intact parts.
> >
>
> RAM can be purchased in England commercially. The stuff is 20 or 30 years
> old. We didn't invent it. Surely the Russkey's have learned how to
> formulate the stuff by now.
>
I'm not concerned about the RAM that much. The USAF has already acknowledged
that the RAM used on the F-117 isn't that "secret" anymore. It's the electronic
equipment on-board that I'm really worried about, which is extremely sensitive
and is in most cases "top secret". This includes but is not limited to avionics,
targeting, Fly-By-Wire, communications, IFF, etc., etc. If any of these are
compromised we could have very serious problems in any future conflict. The
airframe itself and the RAM might be 20 years old, but the equipment on the
aircraft has certainly been upgraded a number of times and is far newer than the
plane.
I firmly believe that we should have destroyed the wreckage not only to deny the
Serbs and their allies the opportunity to salvage any parts from it but also
deny them the huge propaganda victory they got out of this incident.
Sam
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 05:16:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Kaltsidis
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Please allow me to correct myself:
> IIRC an F414 engine survived
The F-117 uses the F404 engine NOT the F414 as I stated above. The F414 is an
improved F404 used in the F-18E/F Super Hornet.
> the
> crash almost intact, and I'm sure there are a lot of countries that wouldn't
> mind getting their hands on one, despite it's age.
>
> Sam "Bomb'em all back to the stone age" Kaltsidis
>
Please pardon my foobar.
Sam "My RAM isn't working right" Kaltsidis
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:23:04
From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David)
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
Sam writes:
>I firmly believe that we should have destroyed the wreckage not only to deny the
>Serbs and their allies the opportunity to salvage any parts from it but also
>deny them the huge propaganda victory they got out of this incident.
I'd bet good money that the USAF wanted to do exactly what you suggest,
the two main reasons I can see for not doing it are:
1) Was the wreckage was very quickly surrounded by people, including
journalists from around the world. How's it going to look if BBC etc.
reporters are killed by Napalm or whatever and were such weapons
available at short notice ? ( Not sure that a fuel/air explosion would
guarantee the destruction of the wreckage.)
2) The possibility of a denial strike was considered by Serbian
military chiefs who clearly had SAM & AA assets in the area.
The fact that an F-117 was tasked to hit the original target indicates
that it was well defended. Therefore, sending in another a/c in the
prevailing bad weather conditions would have been a very high risk
gambit, that could have resulted in another downing and possible pilot
fatality.
Like you, I expected the wreckage to be blitzed, but on reflection I came
to the conclusion that it simply wasn't possible given the time
constraints, the situation on the ground locally and the unknown enemy SAM
capability.
Best
David
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 06:50:32 -0700
From: patrick
Subject: Re: Crash of F-117 at Airshow
>
>I'm not concerned about the RAM that much. The USAF has already acknowledged
>that the RAM used on the F-117 isn't that "secret" anymore. It's the
electronic
>equipment on-board that I'm really worried about, which is extremely
sensitive
>and is in most cases "top secret". This includes but is not limited to
avionics,
>targeting, Fly-By-Wire, communications, IFF, etc., etc. If any of these are
>compromised we could have very serious problems in any future conflict. The
>airframe itself and the RAM might be 20 years old, but the equipment on the
>aircraft has certainly been upgraded a number of times and is far newer
than the
>plane.
>
>I firmly believe that we should have destroyed the wreckage not only to
deny the
>Serbs and their allies the opportunity to salvage any parts from it but also
>deny them the huge propaganda victory they got out of this incident.
>
Sam,
You seem to be of the opinion that everything we have is a secret to our
enemy. This is not realistic and would add additional needless cost to
protecting everything we have. I recall hearing recently that 1 of every 3
employees in Washington DC needs a security clearance due to the endless
number of documents marked "classified" or "secret". Course when you issue
passes to everyone then it hardly remains a secure measure. Nor can you
really keep all that secret. So what is really secret and what isn't?
The F-117 uses many standard systems. The fly by wire system is from an
F-16. The same plane downed in Bosnia and sold overseas. Comm gear is
simple and standard. I can listen to the conversations of ground handlers
and pilots (when they are talking) with a Radio Shack 2035 scanning
receiver. The F-117 is not equipped with frequency hopping gear. Not sure
about how secret the radar altimeter is but I'm guessing quite standard.
GPS equipment is new but top secret? Don't think that secret. After all
the satellites have been broadcasting GPS signals to Russia for 10 years
now so surely they are quite capable of buying anything they want in the US
and tweaking it to receive the mil signals.
The IRADS are unique to the plane but are essentially IR equipment
repackaged and reconfigured in a new package to do the same job as it
always does. I don't know about the IFF equipment. It may contain coded
signals. But here again it is just another transmitter and as we broadcast
the signals hundreds of times a day world wide we would be foolish to think
they don't have tapes of these signals also. They do ELINT too don't they?
As far as psychological advantage or propagada value of having shot down a
F-117, I would argue we have as much to do with that as anyone. As seen
recently we touted this plane to be invinvible so when we lost one it
seemed a much bigger event then it really was. If we fuss and moan about
the great loss of one aircraft then it only fuels the fire of how great a
loss it was. If we declare it a minor loss and we aren't worried about the
perceived technical advantage of examining the wreckage then this lessens
the propaganda value. It seems the Joint Chiefs are asking the right
questions. Why did we lose one and how do we prevent the loss of another.
Jimmy Carter doted over the Iranian held hostages and that cost him an
election and possibly lengthened the release process.
So, Art is worried about RAM, you are worried about everything else. It
seems that we lost a U-2 over Russia almost 40 years ago. How top secret
was it? And.....we still fly them and they don't.
patrick
------------------------------
End of skunk-works-digest V8 #57
********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe
in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address
to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to georgek@netwrx1.com.
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at:
http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works
If you have any questions or problems please contact me at:
georgek@netwrx1.com
Thanks,
George R. Kasica
Listowner